Right to what?

News item:

The (Republican) candidates are split on social issues, most notably a women's right to terminate a pregnancy.

This is the wrong way to phrase it. It is the abortionist's right to terminate a pregnancy. A woman doesn't terminate a pregnancy, she goes to a abortuary to have her baby terminated by an abortionist.

The debate is not over a woman's rights, but over the rights of the abortion industry to make money killing babies. I remember reading the words of an impoverished confederate soldier who said he was fighting for his "rights". He wasn't. He was fighting for the slave owner's rights to keep slaves, a right that did not benefit the soldier. He had just been convinced by those with power and money that his rights were compromised somehow if slaves became free. He didn't want to be equal in the eyes of the law with blacks. So he fought for his "right" to be better than the slaves.

Similarly, a woman who has been convinced that she needs to protect her "right" to terminate her pregnancy is supporting the abortionist's right to kill children for profit. The abortion industry, though it's slick marketing and huge amount of political contributions feeding the greed of U.S. politicians, has convinced her that letting them kill her baby is a good thing. The woman doesn't really need the abortion industry: there are plenty of ways to keep from having children if she doesn't want children, but the people with power and wealth have convinced her that the cruel practice of abortion is a good and necessary thing.